The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS THE BEST OPTION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E132 on Feb. 12, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS THE BEST OPTION
______
HON. DOUG BEREUTER
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 12, 2002
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the February 5, 2002, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial stresses the need to move forward on the construction of a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As the editorial indicates, the Yucca Mountain location has been thoroughly studied and reviewed. Now that it has been chosen as the preferred location, Congress should approve the decision and facilitate the development of this site. Such an action would greatly enhance national safety and security.
Further Delay Not an Option--Yucca Mountain Now Officially Declared
Best Nuclear Waste Site
Nearly 40 years after the federal effort began to find a permanent place to store high-level nuclear waste, a suitable site has been identified. It is now 20 years after Congress promised to have such a facility opened; five years after Congress named the preferred location--Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest of Law Vegas, Nev.
Exhaustive scientific review has affirmed that site's suitability. The federal Department of Energy has now officially declared that the Nevada site meets the stringent standards prescribed for storing 70,000 tons of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste.
It does not mean transfer of such materials from 130 separate sites across the nation, much of it from nuclear power plants, will occur soon. The next step in the process is for President Bush to approve the recommended site and apply for a federal license. Nevada officials aim to derail the project, and a 1987 law gives that state veto power. Congress can then override the veto.
The process will still consume years, rather than months. And so will design work and construction once an irreversible decision is made. While it is projected now that the repository could be ready to accept waste by 2010, experience proves that is an optimistic timeline.
Opponents lack a key argument, however: that there surely are other, better sites available in the continental United States. Those were weighed long ago, and the sparsely-settled mountainous desert terrain in Nevada, already probed, tunneled and extensively surveyed for its stability, was chosen on justifiable scientific grounds. That the state has a small population might have been a political plus, but determined opposition on the part of its leadership has kept the issue in doubt long after the site should have been ready.
Now it is up to Congress once again to reaffirm its earlier decision, and to offer the best protection against future risks from nuclear waste by proceeding with deliberate speed to store the nuclear waste where it can be monitored carefully for the safety of generations of Americans yet to come.
The sensible majority of today's national political leaders must recognize that the greater good for the greater number is the issue. One state cannot have veto power over 49 others in a matter of vital national importance. Further delay only increases the risks and makes the nation more vulnerable to terrorists and the hazards that nuclear waste represents.
____________________
